• US grounds all Boeing 787 Dreamliners over safety concerns
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39253022]For the same reason they don't use 747's. They don't need them. They have 777's which can hold over 400 people, and have longer range. Besides, American Airlines not using Boeing? What a FUCK YOU to America that would be. Boeing is a business, a private company started from a garage in the USA. Airbus is not, nor American I don't like Airbus for the fact that all of the major pieces of an Airbus are made by someone different, transported, and then assembled[/QUOTE] American Airlines HAS Airbus A319, A321-200 Transcon, A321-200, A320neo's on order. The first delivery of their airbus fleet is July. They have around 250 airbus planes on order. Basically, they already said FUCK YOU to america because FUCK YOU AMERICA WE DO WHAT WE WANT WE ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT!
[QUOTE=jordguitar;39253515]American Airlines HAS Airbus A319, A321-200 Transcon, A321-200, A320neo's on order. The first delivery of their airbus fleet is July. They have around 250 airbus planes on order. Basically, they already said FUCK YOU to america because FUCK YOU AMERICA WE DO WHAT WE WANT WE ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT![/QUOTE] Doesn't change the fact that they still have zero of them in the fleet, and have had zero
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39253508]It's American Airlines. It would sort of be like Soccer being called Soccer instead of football in Europe. It would be bad for their image! You don't want to be American Airlines, but use Airbus instead of Boeing, that would just be preposterous![/QUOTE] Since when is using the better product bad for image?
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39253525]Doesn't change the fact that they still have zero of them in the fleet, and have had zero[/QUOTE] They had BAC One-Eleven airplanes in their fleet Want to know who made them THE BRITISH gasp Then there is the BAe 146 also made by the british then the Fokker 100 made in the Netherlands AND the Airbus A300 was also in their fleet. They have NEVER bought american exclusively.
Have to admit that it looks fantastic.
[QUOTE=Chinook249;39248359]I hope it doesn't end up like the Concorde, where one simple repair fixes the problems but they still won't let it fly. That probably won't happen, but it'd be sad.[/QUOTE] Merica's government wouldn't let that happen. It's too early in the 787's life for them to even consider forcing it to be grounded indefinitely.
All 50 787's have been grounded. Only 4 are temporarily grounded. Basically, all of them don't feel safe flying them around.
[QUOTE=Chinook249;39248359]I hope it doesn't end up like the Concorde, where one simple repair fixes the problems but they still won't let it fly. That probably won't happen, but it'd be sad.[/QUOTE] Airlines would loose money over the Concorde, because it was too expensive to fly back then. Now that fuel prices have gone way up, it would be even worse.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;39253508]It's American Airlines. It would sort of be like Soccer being called Soccer instead of football in Europe. It would be bad for their image! You don't want to be American Airlines, but use Airbus instead of Boeing, that would just be preposterous![/QUOTE] They are under no obligation to use domestic aircraft if they don't want to. It's a free country, if American Airlines wants to use Airbus A380s they have every right to. If you don't like that, fine, don't fly with AA, but don't cry about how they're not buying American as if they were somehow obligated to do so. Personally I couldn't give less of a shit who they buy their planes from if I tried, 'long as they're well built and reliable I'm A-OK with their choice. [QUOTE=RoboChimp;39253478] Get some high speed trains then, like Europe.[/QUOTE] Not feasible. The ticket prices would be far too high to justify installing such a system, and ridership would be so low it'd operate severely in the red until cancelled. It just would not work here. We have our own cars, we have interstate highways, there's just not a market for high speed rail in the United States. People will either drive, which will be two or three times cheaper than a high-speed train for roughly the same transit time, or they'll board a jet, which costs about the same as the train and makes the trip in a fraction of the time. Believe it or not, we used to have steady passenger rail to all parts of the country. It was even high speed....for the time anyway, 70MPH or so. But then the interstate network showed up in the mid 1950s and pretty much killed passenger rail overnight. with the high-speed highway system in place, people found that they could get in their car and just drive somewhere, whenever they wanted, without having to wait for departure times or worrying about missing the train, and they found that they could do it at a fraction of the cost. So ridership dropped like a rock, and by the mid 1960s, passenger rail service was an absolute shamble. Nowadays the only long-distance passenger trains running on American railways are special purpose, usually either canyon tours or pulled by old steam locomotives and ridden by railfans. The fastest bullet train in the world just cannot compete, it's far cheaper to drive and far faster to fly.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39263409]Not feasible. The ticket prices would be far too high to justify installing such a system, and ridership would be so low it'd operate severely in the red until cancelled. It just would not work here. We have our own cars, we have interstate highways, there's just not a market for high speed rail in the United States. People will either drive, which will be two or three times cheaper than a high-speed train for roughly the same transit time, or they'll board a jet, which costs about the same as the train and makes the trip in a fraction of the time. Believe it or not, we used to have steady passenger rail to all parts of the country. It was even high speed....for the time anyway, 70MPH or so. But then the interstate network showed up and pretty much killed passenger rail overnight. Nowadays the only long-distance passenger trains running on American railways are special purpose, usually either canyon tours or pulled by old steam locomotives and ridden by railfans. The fastest bullet train in the world just cannot compete, it's far cheaper to drive and far faster to fly.[/QUOTE] Part of the problem is that we can't bring cars with us. It sounds stupid, but think about it for a minute. Most Americans who are planning on traveling like this already have a car. Even with a ton of train infrastructure, you are still going to frequently need a car at both ends of the trip to get exactly where you want to go. If you ride the train, that means rentals, and all sorts of other crap to deal with at your destination. Why not fly at that point if it's already going to be a pain in the ass? If you could bring your car with you on a train, it might be worth it because its quite comfortable in comparison, but the cost can't too high if it wants to compete with flying, or just driving yourself. At the end of the day, America's just too bloody enormous for a huge train system to be feasible with our current culture, and the alternatives available. edit: Wow I just realized how insanely offtopic this was.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;39263460]Part of the problem is that we can't bring cars with us. It sounds stupid, but think about it for a minute. Most Americans who are planning on traveling like this already have a car. Even with a ton of train infrastructure, you are still going to frequently need a car at both ends of the trip to get exactly where you want to go. If you ride the train, that means rentals, and all sorts of other crap to deal with at your destination. Why not fly at that point if it's already going to be a pain in the ass? If you could bring your car with you on a train, it might be worth it because its quite comfortable in comparison, but the cost can't too high if it wants to compete with flying, or just driving yourself.[/quote] If this could be done while keeping ticket prices to roughly half of what it costs to board a commuter jet between the same points it [i]might[/i] work, something similar to the trains running through the Channel Tunnel perhaps. I would certainly be up for taking such a train, and hell, at that point I don't even care if it's high-speed or not. Put an oil-fired steam locomotive on the front and let's roll! Four days of being behind a 4-8-4 steam engine that's roaring across the land at 85MPH? Fuck yeah. The main issue is getting those ticket prices down enough. When the trains first launch the ticket prices are going to be through the roof, and I have my doubts ridership would increase enough to bring that price down to where it needs to be. On top of that, personal interstate travel is very heavily seasonal....Some 70% of the revenue would come in during November and December alone I reckon. A fair chunk of the balance would come in during Spring Break and July 4th. Between these dates there'd be huge spans of time where the trains may be at half capacity. That's....also a problem if you want to get ticket prices down. The other main issue is going to be security. If the TSA is sitting at the train station entrance a lot of us would sooner just drive ourselves. I know I would. The TSA is why I refuse to fly as it is, if they're guarding the trains as well I'm just going to grab I40 and drive towards the setting sun for a few days. [quote]At the end of the day, America's just too bloody enormous for a huge train system to be feasible with our current culture, and the alternatives available.[/QUOTE] I do agree about that, too. America is one of the few places where you can drive three thousand miles and never cross an international border, and with our car culture as ingrained as it is, it's going to take a lot to get passenger rail alive again. Our car culture is what killed it off in the first place, after all.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39263519] Put an oil-fired steam locomotive on the front and let's roll! Four days of being behind a 4-8-4 steam engine that's roaring across the land at 85MPH? Fuck yeah.[/QUOTE] Ecomentalists would never allow that.
[QUOTE=Apache249;39263534]Ecomentalists would never allow that.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but you're wrong. Such a train is currently running the rails to this day, and is pulled by the only steam locomotive in the entire western world to never be retired. [video=youtube;HRTYNxtbnjI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRTYNxtbnjI[/video] They run that thing off, amongst other fuels, used engine oil from the rest of the UP fleet, and it serves a railfan-oriented line across the midwest and into the Mojave if I remember right. So yeah, the ecomentalists can go sit on one, because I can't hear them over how awesome this piece of still-running history is. :v:
Wow I didn't know that. That's awesome. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] How do they stoke the fire? Some dude with a hose? :v:
[QUOTE=Apache249;39263557] How do they stoke the fire? Some dude with a hose? :v:[/QUOTE] It's automatic. What's in the firebox is basically a big-ass version of what powers a propane barbeque, so all they do is light it and modulate how much oil is admitted in to control the heat level. It will also run on pretty much anything that's A: liquid B: Flammable. There's no reason you couldn't run it off of veggie oil if you could get a sufficient supply.
[QUOTE=TestECull;39263832]It's automatic. What's in the firebox is basically a big-ass version of what powers a propane barbeque, so all they do is light it and modulate how much oil is admitted in to control the heat level.[/QUOTE] Yeah, uh, that's not as funny. [editline]17th January 2013[/editline] still cool, though
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.